About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
KQED (PBS) 7
KRCB (PBS) 5
WETA 4
WHUT (Howard University Television) 4
CNN 1
CNNW 1
CSPAN2 1
WJZ (CBS) 1
WMPT (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 27
Search Results 0 to 26 of about 27 (some duplicates have been removed)
that next paycheck may be smaller is not going over well among the troops. our pentagon correspondent barbara starr has the details. she's working the story. barbara, what's going on? >> wolf, in this town, there's nothing that causes more anxiety in budget politics than the concept of cutting the pay for the troops. but that is exactly what is on the table if congress and the president cannot reach an agreement on a spending plan. the troops usually are happy to see defense secretary leon panetta, smiles and handshakes all around. but days before he leaves office, panetta has bad news. he's proposing less money in their paycheck next year. panetta, a savvy washington operative in budget politics, is leaving it to congress to figure out how not to cut pay and keep thousands of defense employees on the job. >> we will furlough as many as 800,000 d.o.d. civilians around the country for up to 22 days. they could face a 20% cut in their salary. you don't think that's going to impact on our economy? >> but the recommendation to slow the military pay raise will put troops in the middle of t
: for the first time, pentagon leaders said today they had supported arming the rebels in syria. defense secretary leon panetta and general martin dempsey chair of the joint chiefs said they made that recommendation to president obama. panetta told a senate hearing that, in the end, the president decided against sending in arms. instead, the u.s. has provided only humanitarian aid to the rebels. secretary panetta also defended the military's response to the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi, libya. the assault killed ambassador chris stevens and three other americans. panetta testified there'd been no specific warning of an imminent attack, so u.s. forces were too far away to respond. >> the united states military, as i've said, is not and frankly should not be a 911 service capable of arriving on the scene within minutes to every possible contingency around the world. the u.s. military has neither the resources nor the responsibility to have a firehouse next to every u.s. facility in the world. >> sreenivasan: republican senator john mccain of arizona argued the military could have deploye
it calls "non- lethal" assistance. and with panetta's departure from the pentagon today, plus clinton's last week and petraeus's resignation in 2012, general dempsey is the only known remaining advocate of arming the rebels still in a top advisory role. i'm joined who served in the obama administration state departments and is now dean of the school of advanced international studies at johns hopkins university. and andrew tabler, a senior fellow at the washington institute for near east policy. what were the main schools of thought. how did the camps break down in this argument inside the administration on what to do about syria, andrew? >> basically you have a discussion about syria about all the different options. and it really comes down to this. the white house was hedgingment they really did not want to get involved in syria. they have a firm policy to stay out of the middle east and would like to pull back. at the same time the agencies that deal with syria and the problem there, which is growing and mushrooming, the state department, cia and to a certain extent the department o
military activity is that nobody in the pentagon would have ordered military act ship without a specific order from the president. and the president wasn't around. rick: i want do ask you both, we have about a minute and a half left. another story came out of these hearings. that is the president himself, rick, himself opposed a plan that was supported by pretty much everybody else in his administration, to try to arm the rebels in syria. what do you make of that? >> you know i think it's remarkable that his team was really recommending that we needed to do something to support what was happening there and identify the opposition, the right opposition and then try to give them some sort of military support. and the president said no. i think this goes back to exactly who he is and what he believes the inate, positive, good of people. i think he doesn't understand, the president doesn't understand, this is a dangerous world and that we need to take sides to make sure that the right people are the ones who take hold in syria. it is the same thing that happened in egypt. really the same thi
you briefly, if you would, because given the kind of changes you are talk pentagon, people paying online, for example. where is this headed? does the american public have to get used to a lesser service and perhaps at some point the end of the postal service? >> no, not at all. we think the future is very bright, as long as you take the steps to get the financein order. our plan-- our plan has us getting back in the black and paying the debt down. now, will there be changes? absolutely. some of the changes we discussed already. we have already made plenty of changes. since the year 2000, this organization, the postal service has reducedly the head count-- head count, payroll, not jobs or job descriptions, payroll-- by 305,000 employees, 193,000 since 2008. we have-- our people do a great job. they're very productive. we have done anything and everything in our power to try to catch up to the loss that we've got in volume. people say, suggest we raise prices dramatically. that chase more volume away. we are trying to take a very business-like approach. we think it's a win-win. ever
,000 dead americans, the trade towers are taken out, the pentagon's been hit. if it hadn't been for the folks on 93 they'd have taken out the white house or the capitol on washington, d.c. worst attack in our history. worse than pearl harbor by far. and it was our job to make certain it didn't happen again. we were concerned for a couple of rps, partly because the expectation was there would be a follow on attack, nearly everybody believed it. but we also received intelligence that al qaeda was trying to get their hands on deadlier weapons. >> rose: do you regret nothing about the aftermath in terms of how we -- >> regarding 9/11? >> rose: everything that we did and that you were and the president were at the center of the response to 9/11. look back and say "we regret nothing"? >> that's my view. >> rose: none? >> correct. >> rose: you know this has been debated, too. >> sure. >> rose: were we prepared for the consequences after saddam was overthrown? >> well, that was the second proposition. you asked me about the aftermath of 9/11, the policies we put in place here. i would s
reasons, the pentagon and the planners have made their own case to the president. and with the new resource problem we confronted in mali, look what it took to support french against al qaeda sub contractors. if we can't do that when in fact americans are held hostage and killed, what kind of response do you really expect for . >> is that a consequence of the u.s. not getting involved in mali earlier? >> what is the implication from that we in effect need to be involved -- . >> the u.s. has been concerned about mali for at least eight nows. -- months only now there's a discussion about where we should do more. >> look, in the time of the great extra cater. we are -- that -- what is threaten, our foreign policy is not manic interventionism right now. that's not what we have to worry about here. >> let's move on. if you have a question, raise your hand. i'm going ask you to identify yourself. keep your question short. let's go to [inaudible] of radio-- and then go to the woman right here in the black and hand the microphone to her. >> hi, my name is -- [inaudible] that syria is part
Search Results 0 to 26 of about 27 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)